[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Drifloon]

That's a very good point, actually. I mean, it's hard to imagine that some of those scenarios weren't set up with the intent of frightening people, even if that wasn't the primary goal; in fact, fear actually helps the primary goal in that it makes people less likely to behave rationally and cautiously. So I wouldn't take those reds as meaning that Yasu never did any of those things, just that they weren't the objective.

[Renall]

Means to an end. The thing is, money and pleasure are ends unto themselves. Causing fear is a method and an obvious intended and necessary side-effect of ritual murders, even if they're faked. Revenge is an end, but in many ways revenge can be incidental to a person's actual end. After all, the plan apparently was to kill people with whom there was no reason to take revenge just as much as anyone who deserved it. It's very difficult to believe revenge would be a result of every death (what possible revenge could anyone take against Maria?).

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Causing fear is a method and an obvious intended and necessary side-effect of ritual murders, even if they're faked.

Not necessarily if they are faked or at least the culprit wants people to believe they are faked. Okay, fear would be a possible side-effect, as it can also be connected with thrill, but kyoufu, the word Ryukishi used, implies terror and that did not seem to have been Yasu's goal even at her worst. Actually, she wanted people to keep their calm and solve the epitaph; fear and terror would be a distraction in that venture.

It's very difficult to believe revenge would be a result of every death (what possible revenge could anyone take against Maria?).

I don't believe that either.
What I actually wanted to aim at was, that every murder that could be considered a murder out of revenge was not what the game had been created for. It was not the goal of the game to have Natsuhi survive to the very end in EP1...even worse she was apparently supposed to be discarded as a victim very early, only saved by the rules the culprit created.
The fact that the final result of the game is random to a great deal proves in itself that revenge is not the primary motive, BECAUSE there is at least one innocent victim: Maria.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Not necessarily if they are faked or at least the culprit wants people to believe they are faked. Okay, fear would be a possible side-effect, as it can also be connected with thrill, but kyoufu, the word Ryukishi used, implies terror and that did not seem to have been Yasu's goal even at her worst. Actually, she wanted people to keep their calm and solve the epitaph; fear and terror would be a distraction in that venture.

And yet she's presenting them with their relatives with their faces sanded off. Even if it's fake, and some of them know it's fake, at least one person does not know this. To suggest the expected reaction to this is "Well shit, I better buckle down and solve that word puzzle while some face-mangling lunatic is running around" seems a bit curious at best. Surely she would've had to expect that people would be afraid, and that some would be genuinely shaken to the point of maybe not being able to focus on the epitaph, but only on survival? That sounds like terror to me.

That wasn't the goal, but one has to expect it to happen. If you want to convince people you're serious about them applying themselves to the epitaph without actually terrorizing them into fight or flight mode, kidnapping would work far better than murder, and a clean murder would work far better than a brutal one. "I have spirited Maria away with my magic. If you ever want to see her again, I suggest you solve the epitaph" is more likely to garner cooperation than "Oh by the way did you solve that epitaph? I know you're still a little torn up about the whole driving stakes into the foreheads of your parents, but focus on what's really important here!"

[Witch of Uncertainty]

Well, that wouldn't have been much Mystery to solve, and would hardly help Battler remember his sin.

...Not that killing everyone around him would normally make him nostalgic about the good old days with Shannon, but.. At least it's closer.
And I think they need to be brutal as long as she can't hide their wounds with a stake. You know, so they don't see that the victim was shot or.. not wounded at all.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Witch of Uncertainty

Well, that wouldn't have been much Mystery to solve, and would hardly help Battler remember his sin.

...Not that killing everyone around him would normally make him nostalgic about the good old days with Shannon, but.. At least it's closer.
And I think they need to be brutal as long as she can't hide their wounds with a stake. You know, so they don't see that the victim was shot or.. not wounded at all.

The issue is that if the goal is to create a fake mystery (perhaps) and have everyone focus on the epitaph... why aren't the accomplices focusing on the epitaph? If Rosa is the accomplice in Turn, why isn't she insisting everybody bunker down and solve the epitaph? If the goal is solely to make Battler remember, why aren't they doing things that might spark his memory? It's like she has absolutely no control over what people do, and/or no actual interest in her own stated objective.

Look at Alliance. The hell was the point of all that? Look at it from Battler's point of view: He's received an array of terrifying phone calls and locked two people in a shed. He just found George dead and has every reason to believe everyone else is also dead. And then Beatrice is like "Hey, this jog your memory any?"

...what? I sure as hell hope there was a book Battler and Shannon read that goes exactly like this one because otherwise I fail to see how the hell any of that was of any use whatsoever to helping Battler remember anything at all. People often have trouble remembering things when they think they're dealing with a serial killer.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

That red might refer to Meta-Beatrice, but it isn't obvious considering the rest of that section. At least, Battler was clearly talking about gameboard motives from start to finish, and dropping lines of red about whether meta-Beatrice was after the gold seems a bit of a time waster and a pointless trick on Virgilia's part.

Well, the red seems specific to me as to talk about Beato she used 'this child'.
Or was the 'this' added just by the translation?
And it wouldn't be the first time Battler is tricked by red because he refers to something and who uses red refers to something else.
Battler is also strickly connecting the gameboard to himself as it looks like that if PieceBattler were to be the culprit, he would be the culprit as well.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

As for EP5, how does making Natsuhi suffer tie into making Battler remember his promise? Battler showing kindness towards the underdog is a pretty essential part of his character (and might be why Yasu liked him in the first place), so bullying Natsuhi would probably just have the effect of pissing Battler off.

PieceYasu is willing to kill people (Battler's most loved people I might add) in order to make Battler remember his promise. Making them suffer seems a... much tamer thing.
So the possibilities are:
- PieceYasu has a different goal
- PieceYasu is pursuing two different goals (getting revenge on others and having Battler remember)
- PieceYasu completely fails to understand that what she's doing will bring Battler far from her goal
- PieceYasu thinks this will bring Battler to remember his promise even through there will be consequences (Battler hating her, for example) but she doesn't care about them (for example because she plans to kill herself anyway)

If MetaBeato and PieceYasu have the same goal the way they go at it is pretty different and seems to point to an insane Yasu but not to an insane Beato.

And if Yasu is insane then she might fail to realize what she's doing will cause people to experience fear and might even feel pleasure not in the killing per se but in the idea she's playing a game with Battler.

In fact, insanity is the best excuse for Yasu because really, if one is stuck on an insland with a murderer on the loose who's killing the person he loves the most the last thing that's going to come to his mind is a promise he made 6 years ago to a girl who's apparently about to willingly and happily marry his cousin. Expecially when among the victims there are the friends and apparent love interest of said girl... as well as that girl.

Realy, if someone can find a theory for PieceYasu that doesn't involve insanity but just having Battler remember his promise and yet keep her as the killer I'll love to hear it.

[DaBackpack]

To be fair, EP7 was rather vague about this. To me, it seemed more like Battler's arrival sparked Yasu's "I don't give a shit anymore" stage with regards to the lives of the Ushiromiya family (I think this is before the 'Golden Nocturne' scene). It felt more like she wanted to see if he actually remembered instead of trying to get him to remember. And then something about being understood. Vague.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

To be fair, EP7 was rather vague about this. To me, it seemed more like Battler's arrival sparked Yasu's "I don't give a shit anymore" stage with regards to the lives of the Ushiromiya family (I think this is before the 'Golden Nocturne' scene). It felt more like she wanted to see if he actually remembered instead of trying to get him to remember. And then something about being understood. Vague.

Wouldn't it be better to solicit his recollection before you murder everybody? Certainly it's arguable that hey, he had lots of time on the 4th to talk to Shannon, but does he really? Usually other people are around. His promise is distinctly personal. Maybe he wouldn't want to bring it up, especially in front of George or the family. Especially in Alliance, he's barely had any time at all to get with Shannon and just talk. If she was expecting him to remember, it sure seems like she jumped the gun.

If Beatrice were expressing some kind of twisted "There, now everyone's dead and we can be alone. Got something to tell me?" attitude, I suppose that'd be one thing, but she doesn't seem to see the victims as inconvenient obstacles given that she goes rather out of her way to set up the mysteries and deaths.

Basically, why isn't she taking any steps to isolate Battler? There's no way for him to indicate he remembers the promise until he's given the opportunity to do so in a more intimate and private setting. She can find the time to go see George and shit, but she can't arrange fifteen minutes going over old times in private with Battler? How is that fair?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

Wouldn't it be better to solicit his recollection before you murder everybody? Certainly it's arguable that hey, he had lots of time on the 4th to talk to Shannon, but does he really? Usually other people are around. His promise is distinctly personal. Maybe he wouldn't want to bring it up, especially in front of George or the family. Especially in Alliance, he's barely had any time at all to get with Shannon and just talk. If she was expecting him to remember, it sure seems like she jumped the gun.

If Beatrice were expressing some kind of twisted "There, now everyone's dead and we can be alone. Got something to tell me?" attitude, I suppose that'd be one thing, but she doesn't seem to see the victims as inconvenient obstacles given that she goes rather out of her way to set up the mysteries and deaths.

Basically, why isn't she taking any steps to isolate Battler? There's no way for him to indicate he remembers the promise until he's given the opportunity to do so in a more intimate and private setting. She can find the time to go see George and shit, but she can't arrange fifteen minutes going over old times in private with Battler? How is that fair?

Yep, that's what's illogic. It seems Umineko tries to wave it off with a 'it's an obscure love letter from a shy and clumsy person' but it songs more like a letter from a sociopath.
The only Ep in with Battler had a fair chance before murders started is Ep 3, in which she mentioned something close to Battler's promise and he stated something along the line of I don't remember nor I wanted to remember all the stupid things I said which might have hurt her even if the setting was completely wrong to have him say something different.

Interesting enough though Battler will admit he liked her back then... although he won't do it out loud.

In Ep 4 instead the whole thing is completely unfair. Of all the things Battler can come up when a stranger who calls herself the witch who's murdering everyone will ask him about his sin, his promise is likely the last.
Not only it's unlikely in the mess he's in he'll be able to remember it, but it's even more unlikely he'll connect the dots and figure Shannon is causing all that after he'd learnt George and Shannon are a couple.

Ep 1, 2 & 5 doesn't really seem to aim to have him remember anything.
That's true in Ep 1 Shannon had to change her plan (maybe if she didn't she would try to have him remember?) but, as soon as she did it it's game over. She can't expect Battler would cry more for her when his parents are dead in front of him and surely he won't mention it in front of George.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, the red seems specific to me as to talk about Beato she used 'this child'.
Or was the 'this' added just by the translation?
And it wouldn't be the first time Battler is tricked by red because he refers to something and who uses red refers to something else.
Battler is also strickly connecting the gameboard to himself as it looks like that if PieceBattler were to be the culprit, he would be the culprit as well.

Well, I think Renall covered this. Virgilia and Battler are talking about the person in the room with them, yet the subject of their conversation is clearly someone on the gameboard. Unless there's an extremely strong connection between the two characters, this conversation is pretty much meaningless for both Battler and Virgilia.

I agree that it's possible for Virgilia to trick him in that way, but what would be the point? Battler is earnestly trying to solve her disciple's puzzle. Why butt in unasked and get in his way?

Originally Posted by jjblue1

In fact, insanity is the best excuse for Yasu because really, if one is stuck on an insland with a murderer on the loose who's killing the person he loves the most the last thing that's going to come to his mind is a promise he made 6 years ago to a girl who's apparently about to willingly and happily marry his cousin. Expecially when among the victims there are the friends and apparent love interest of said girl... as well as that girl.

Realy, if someone can find a theory for PieceYasu that doesn't involve insanity but just having Battler remember his promise and yet keep her as the killer I'll love to hear it.

Except, if Yasu is so crazy that she misunderstands Battler so much, I don't think she'd be capable of getting so many accomplices, willing or unwilling. And given her physical weakness, the more potential accomplices we eliminate, the smarter Yasu has to be to succeed in tricking everyone else. Nearly all of her tricks are psychological, not physical.

Originally Posted by haguruma

This might be overthinking it, but of course the goal of Yasu/Beato's game is none of these. The goal is to make Battler remember about their time together. That does not mean though, that revenge or fear cannot happen within the game.
She might not have started the game with the aim to take revenge, but that would not mean that certain events wouldn't drive her to act in a way that might be considered revenge. Just as much as her game might make people afraid, while it is not her initial goal.
It would be completely in line with the fact that she does not murder for pleasure.

I might be misunderstanding Yasu here, but it seems to me that making Battler remember his promise is more of a means, not an end in itself.

For example, I could understand if Yasu was just writing a story or doing a fake murder. By showing Battler that, she indirectly tells him that she's not satisfied being the quiet girl George likes, despite their approaching engagement. If Battler remembers and decides he still wants to fulfill his promise, then both Battler and George have the same claim on Yasu, so to speak. George and Battler will have to prove themselves, and whoever wins, Yasu will be a lot more confident that she ended up with the right person. And of course, if Battler doesn't decide to get involved with his cousin's girlfriend (which is probably much more likely, in Yasu's eyes), then she'll finally have some closure from that promise. She was already willing to marry George before Battler came back, and now she'll be able to do so wholeheartedly, without any lingering regrets.


However, as soon as Yasu murders her first person, everything goes in the trash. If the truth about her never comes out, there was no point in doing this anyway. If it does, neither George nor Battler will want to have anything to do with her, and if they do turn out to be okay with dating someone who murdered their family, why the hell would Yasu want them?

Think about it. They ignored the deaths of those closest to them to marry the true heir of the family fortune. Any guesses as to what happens next?
So what is it that Yasu hopes to gain by making Battler remember?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Except, if Yasu is so crazy that she misunderstands Battler so much, I don't think she'd be capable of getting so many accomplices, willing or unwilling.

I think we have to differentiate between several possibilities of her psychosis. It's not like she is stark raving mad, she is just a severely cracked individual. That is the tragedy of most culprits in mysteries. They are not completely insane, which would absolve them from culpability, they fail to understand that what they are doing is not bettering their situation. After the first murder they simply try to reclaim control over their own reality, which keeps slipping away, and so they have to continue down the pass they started.

Even misunderstanding Battler is not actually a sign of a variant of insanity that disables her to function in society. It's just that one part of her psyche that is cracked, while in other areas she might function perfectly well.

I might be misunderstanding Yasu here, but it seems to me that making Battler remember his promise is more of a means, not an end in itself.

But Beatrice said it several times, she created this game to play it with Ushiromiya Battler, the grandson of Ushiromiya Kinzo, and she continues that game until either side declares defeat or dies.

Thus the goal of the game is not even that much to make Battler remember but, as you implied, to reach a decision on her life. The goal is a decision on the trial of love.

I think her desperation was so far that she did not think straight anymore. That does not mean she went insane, the obstacles simply seemed so strong that she gave up all hope on overcoming them.
Jessica might possibly only want someone in order to not be alone.
George did not show any signs of progress until the plan was already in motion (he did not make a move on Okinawa).
Then there is the aspect of her apparent genital disposition.
Battler comes back which confuses her. Is it about the promise or not?
She is the family head and shoulders an obligation she does not want.
She knows how unable the family is of handling itself.

And somehow she adopted Kinzo's worldview of "only when gambling at the highest odds can you gain a proper result."

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I think we have to differentiate between several possibilities of her psychosis. It's not like she is stark raving mad, she is just a severely cracked individual. That is the tragedy of most culprits in mysteries. They are not completely insane, which would absolve them from culpability, they fail to understand that what they are doing is not bettering their situation. After the first murder they simply try to reclaim control over their own reality, which keeps slipping away, and so they have to continue down the pass they started.

Even misunderstanding Battler is not actually a sign of a variant of insanity that disables her to function in society. It's just that one part of her psyche that is cracked, while in other areas she might function perfectly well.

While true, the problem with Beatrice as portrayed as a culprit on the boards is that most of what she does doesn't seem to clearly work toward any particular end at all. The Love Duel implies she's trying to come to a decision. But murdering anyone does not help this decision be made. In fact, it makes all three of the decisions impossible, leaving suicide as the only answer.

Now you can say "Well, she is suicidal on top of being homicidal," but then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense why she'd kill anyone. There's no reason to kill people if you just have to choose the direction of your life. There's no ability to choose the direction of your life if you kill people. It's a seemingly infinite loop of negative reinforcement suggesting to Beatrice that she ought not harm anyone, as otherwise she will never get an outcome that she is accepting of.

And if we cut out the decision-making process, we seem to be left with a motiveless series of murders. It just doesn't make any sense, even for a partially insane individual. It's such a significant departure from rationality that it just doesn't appear that anyone would arrive at the decision to behave in that manner. Particularly so when doing so necessarily precludes all scenarios the culprit actually desires.

About the only explanation I can think of to get around this is to say "She was so frustrated by her inability to reach a decision on three separate but acceptable potential outcomes that she just threw up her hands and decided to destroy herself and everyone around her out of sheer rage." I could see even a basically sane person becoming upset like this if they were indecisive enough... probably not enough to kill random uninvolved people, mind you, but at least upset enough to make a poor impulse decision that cuts them off from any of their desired choices. But then that essentially means the motive of the culprit was extreme indecision. As interesting motives go, that isn't exactly one of them.

[goldendust]

I just reread all of Umineko again.

Just wondering did Erika/Bernkastel work out that Shannon and Kannon were the same person in the 5th game when all of the time people were gathered in the parlor? The red truth said that everyone on the island in the parlor rather then listing the names.

Also in the 6th game, Erika made a comment after Batter jokingly asked if would be disappointing if nobody died, then Erika said "it would be troublesome if our numbers have not thinned out by tomorrow morning" to which Shannon had a reacton. Was Eriak prehaps addressing Shannon instead of Battler with that comment.

Also in 6th game, Erika has no interest in finding the culprit but rather wanting to trap Battler in a logic error.

Originally Posted by Renall

While true, the problem with Beatrice as portrayed as a culprit on the boards is that most of what she does doesn't seem to clearly work toward any particular end at all. The Love Duel implies she's trying to come to a decision. But murdering anyone does not help this decision be made. In fact, it makes all three of the decisions impossible, leaving suicide as the only answer.

Now you can say "Well, she is suicidal on top of being homicidal," but then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense why she'd kill anyone. There's no reason to kill people if you just have to choose the direction of your life. There's no ability to choose the direction of your life if you kill people. It's a seemingly infinite loop of negative reinforcement suggesting to Beatrice that she ought not harm anyone, as otherwise she will never get an outcome that she is accepting of.

And if we cut out the decision-making process, we seem to be left with a motiveless series of murders. It just doesn't make any sense, even for a partially insane individual. It's such a significant departure from rationality that it just doesn't appear that anyone would arrive at the decision to behave in that manner. Particularly so when doing so necessarily precludes all scenarios the culprit actually desires.

About the only explanation I can think of to get around this is to say "She was so frustrated by her inability to reach a decision on three separate but acceptable potential outcomes that she just threw up her hands and decided to destroy herself and everyone around her out of sheer rage." I could see even a basically sane person becoming upset like this if they were indecisive enough... probably not enough to kill random uninvolved people, mind you, but at least upset enough to make a poor impulse decision that cuts them off from any of their desired choices. But then that essentially means the motive of the culprit was extreme indecision. As interesting motives go, that isn't exactly one of them.

Didn't Kannon/Shannon say that their duel was a mere farce before Shannon shot him. I do not think that love duel was suppose represent coming to a decision as it did not really matter one way or another who won. It is not like that when Shannon won that Beatrice was unable to receive love from battler.

I figured that Beatrice's motivation in terms of the game based on the magical theme of the story was to create a catbox where everyone is happy.

Basically the catbox was created with the bomb that leaves nobody alive or any evidence. After all in the end of every game, it is mentioned that they will reach the golden land.

As for the murders,wanting Batter to rmember and someone solving the epitaph. I figured it was the risk part of her magic. Magic cannot come true without risk. In fact I would imagine that Beatrice would have wanted to lose.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by goldendust

I just reread all of Umineko again.

Just wondering did Erika/Bernkastel work out that Shannon and Kannon were the same person in the 5th game when all of the time people were gathered in the parlor? The red truth said that everyone on the island in the parlor rather then listing the names.

Oh lord, this again.
BASICALLY, we have no consensus on the EP5 parlor scenes (there are two to consider - the one where Lambda's reds about numbers of people was made, and the later scene when Erika announced Natsuhi-culprit). No consensus, AT ALL. Everyone here seems to have settled on an answer that satisfies them.

I personally, very, VERY much doubt that Erika/Bern worked out Shkanon, for several reasons. However, you can also competently argue otherwise.

Originally Posted by goldendust

Also in the 6th game, Erika made a comment after Batter jokingly asked if would be disappointing if nobody died, then Erika said "it would be troublesome if our numbers have not thinned out by tomorrow morning" to which Shannon had a reacton. Was Eriak prehaps addressing Shannon instead of Battler with that comment.

Oh, could you point out where that exchange took place? I'd consider looking at it again ... I doubt she was addressing Shannon, since Erika pays ASTOUNDINGLY little attention to her in EP5, EP6, and EP8. Like I said before, I don't think Erika worked out Shkanon at all at that time.

Originally Posted by goldendust

Also in 6th game, Erika has no interest in finding the culprit but rather wanting to trap Battler in a logic error.

This is true. However, very technically speaking, Erika's goal changed the instant Beatrice came to the wedding, because at that point the Logic Error was solved.

If Beatrice won, than it meant she had a human-culprit solution that fit all the reds, and successfully hid it with magic.
If Erika won, it would mean she had ... found a human-culprit solution that fit all the reds, and successfully destroyed Beato's magic hiding it.

[Valkama]

Originally Posted by goldendust

I just reread all of Umineko again.

Just wondering did Erika/Bernkastel work out that Shannon and Kannon were the same person in the 5th game when all of the time people were gathered in the parlor? The red truth said that everyone on the island in the parlor rather then listing the names.

I doubt it. Bernkastel was seeing the game through Battler which was a false perspective and never really communicated with Erika and just sorta let Erika do her own thing. Erika ignored most of the family and just focused entirely on Natsuhi. If she did start paying attention to Shannon and Kanon in the 6th game she likely wouldn't notice one of them not being in the last game as she really didn't pay attention to them in the first place.

Bernkastel probably figured it out some time in the 6th game though although she didn't inform Erika cause that would probably have been boring to her. If not during then soon after as she obviously knew the solution in the 7th game.

[chronotrig]

Let's look at it this way, though. Most people are fairly sure that Yasu-culprit was Ryuukishi's intended answer. But the majority of people also seem less than satisfied with all the motives for Yasu that have been raised so far.

I've got a question then: why are we so sure that Yasu is the killer on the gameboard? I don't say that to imply that there's no good reason, but because I want to be specific. Is there anything that happens on the board that proves Yasu killed those people, or is our certainty only based on things that happened off the gameboard, in the Core Arcs, or in the Ryuukishi interviews?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Let's look at it this way, though. Most people are fairly sure that Yasu-culprit was Ryuukishi's intended answer. But the majority of people also seem less than satisfied with all the motives for Yasu that have been raised so far.

I've got a question then: why are we so sure that Yasu is the killer on the gameboard? I don't say that to imply that there's no good reason, but because I want to be specific. Is there anything that happens on the board that proves Yasu killed those people, or is our certainty only based on things that happened off the gameboard, in the Core Arcs, or in the Ryuukishi interviews?

My presumption is that people take Will's answers in Requiem at face value, and those answers happen to heavily endorse that culprit theory. Of course, there are a fair number of problems with taking Will entirely at face value:

• Will is giving Clair the answers that satisfy her. Are we absolutely certain the answers that satisfy her are the same as the answers that Ryukishi intended? We know Will would be willing to invent a solution that is "wrong" yet "right" for the person he's talking to. Not out of deception, but compassion and empathy. Why couldn't Will be concocting a "Shkanon dun all of 'em, here's how" solution just to satisfy some desire on the part of the author to be genuinely understood... as a scapegoat?
• Will spends an awful long time early in ep7 harping on the importance of motive. What motive does he give in his "solutions?" ...None, really. Why not? Will is smart enough to come up with a motive, surely. He simply never actually gets asked for the motive. At no point does it appear that anybody wants him to provide a motive. And he's nice enough not to do so when asked... but surely he must be aware that his explanations ring somewhat hollow without a clear and satisfactory motive for the board killer? We don't even get a good motive out of the flashback sequences. The story goes out of its way to tell us how important motive is then doesn't give us one.
• Will's solutions are not the only possible ones for the episodes. Most notably, there are a couple additional ways to maybe solve Banquet, and God only knows what happened in Alliance (which is largely ignored in Will's solutions anyway). As some of the recent Kyrie mental gymnastics has shown, it's not unimaginable to come up with an excuse that would get somebody else in as a potential culprit for Legend and Turn. I'd think a "true solution" would automatically make all other possibilities seem trite, but at least in the case of Banquet there are compelling reasons to argue that the killer is different from the first two games.

Taking all of this into account, it's understandable why people might assume it's what Ryukishi intended and I suppose it's possible to use these arguments to suggest otherwise. Having said that, I don't know what the point would be of lying/misleading in interviews except to be a huge dick, so I'm inclined to think those were the solutions he intended... at the time of ep7, at least.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

Taking all of this into account, it's understandable why people might assume it's what Ryukishi intended and I suppose it's possible to use these arguments to suggest otherwise. Having said that, I don't know what the point would be of lying/misleading in interviews except to be a huge dick, so I'm inclined to think those were the solutions he intended... at the time of ep7, at least.

Well, I think I can understand why he'd mislead in the interviews. His big thing with Umineko was to make a game that was spoiler-proof, and then to force people to solve it on their own instead of revealing an answer. Nearly everything any of us sees these days gets spoiled somehow, so I don't mind him taking this position.

If Ryuukishi thinks his story satisfies the spirit of the Knox rules, no additional hints should be needed now that it's over. So, if we readers are using an interview to decide what we think "the answer" is, then we've either given up on solving his game and are looking for an easy way out, or we've decided that he failed to give us enough clues in the game. So, it makes sense for him to try and say things that will only make sense to someone who already knows the answer.


Outright lying is another matter though, since that doesn't gain him anything. Unless it was unintentional or trying to be too clever, I think anything he says in an interview is meant to be "true". Whether it's part of the final answer or not is a different matter though (Our Confessions implies that there might be two complete answers for the gameboard).


Question's still open though. If he's hinting to "Yasu=killer" in the interviews and through Will, exactly what sort of evidence did he show for it on the gameboard itself, in the first 4 games?

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Question's still open though. If he's hinting to "Yasu=killer" in the interviews and through Will, exactly what sort of evidence did he show for it on the gameboard itself, in the first 4 games?

I can only speak for myself, obviously.

But as of the end of Alliance, I was fairly convinced the culprit was Shannon, with Kanon as some kind of wonky accomplice / manipulated fall guy. Had very briefly considered Shkanon in EP2, quickly dismissed it, and only noticed the "never in the same room" after reading it online after reading Alliance.

The clues were just strongest in Shannon's direction, even if the motive seems kind of incomprehensible, and were fairly weak in everyone else's direction. The only reason I really had to include Kanon at all is because of Lambda's reds at the very very end of EP4. I mean, Turn was actually extremely easy, and Battler only really failed to solve it because he INSISTED on 19th Person X at the time.

And about Will conveniently not really tackling Yasu's motives (I thought he gave some kind of hand-wave like "this should be enough to understand it. Yeah, I get it.") well, how ... very convenient for Ryukishi that the character Ryukishi wrote to be a competent detective doesn't mention any discrepancies in the motive of the culprit Ryukishi wrote. Love, or whatever.™ Or, I guess that sounds kinda dismissive - it's similar to how Kanon was just so glossed over in EP7, though.